Tuesday, July 07, 2015

Iraq snapshot

Tuesday, July 7, 2015. Chaos and violence continue, Barack's 'facts' get challenged, Jill Stein links arms with Hillary Clinton to form Two Candidates Who Won't Talk Iraq, we note the shameful Iraq Body Count, the proposed law for Iraq's National Guard is published, and much more.

Today, State Dept spokesperson John Kirby tried to re-spin when problems were noted with Barack's 'facts.'

QUESTION: Iraq?MR KIRBY: Yeah.QUESTION: Thank you. Just on the President’s statement
yesterday at the Pentagon, he mentioned a number of battlefield
victories in both Iraq and Syria. He actually pointed namely to seven
areas. And what I noticed was that six out of those seven areas were in
the northern regions of Iraq and Syria, where basically the Kurds are in
control. Can you say the Kurds are your only effective partner on the
ground?MR KIRBY: What I can say is – and I’m not going to get into
military analysis – is that when you have capable, effective partners on
the ground against ISIL – indigenous partners on the ground – you can
be much more effective against that group. We’ve seen that in parts of
Iraq where – whether it’s Peshmerga up in the north or Iraqi Security
Forces down in the south, when they are effective, they can have an
immense impact on ISIL. And we have seen that in areas in northern Syria
with counter-ISIL fighters there. And again, the President detailed
some of that and I talked to some of that yesterday as well. They have
been effective in certain places and at certain times.QUESTION: And, like, the only example really he gave that was
outside the Kurdistan regions was Tikrit, which was achieved with the
help of Iranian-backed Shia forces. So can’t you --MR KIRBY: No, that’s not true. He talked about --QUESTION: What else?MR KIRBY: -- Mosul Dam, he talked about --QUESTION: Mosul Dam was with the Kurdish forces. It was --MR KIRBY: He talked about – there’s been other – the Baiji
refinery. I mean, there’s been other areas in Iraq. I know where you’re
trying to go with this, and what I’m trying to tell you is that you need
good partners on the ground. In Iraq, we’re building and we’re working
towards helping advise and assist the Iraqi Security Forces so that they
can become more capable. And in some ways and in some places and at
some times in this fight, they have been very capable.

In the north in Iraq, of course, there’s been some assistance
provided to the Peshmerga, as they have taken the fight to ISIL in
northern Iraq. And yes, we have provided some coalition air support to
counter-ISIL fighters in the north in Syria. And we’re still trying to
get a program stood up to train and equip a moderate Syrian opposition.
Now it’s going slow. We talked about this yesterday. I think we all
recognize there’s a lot of work to be done. But the whole focus of that
effort is to help create additional competent, effective, capable
security forces inside Syria that can go after ISIL – could protect
their neighborhoods, their communities, and go after ISIL.

Rather than attempt a legal justification for the war, which has been
launched and prosecuted behind the backs of the American people and in
defiance of popular opposition, Obama defended his administration’s war
policies by boasting of the large kill count achieved by the US-led
coalition.“It’s important to recognize the progress that’s been
made. We’ve eliminated thousands of fighters,” Obama said, underscoring
the fact that it has become routine for the American president to speak
of “killing” or “taking out” people around the world.Obama
reiterated the US goal of regime change in Syria, declaring that the US
would do more to aid the anti-Assad opposition, and adding that “the
only way” to end the civil war in that country was to “transition to an
inclusive government” without Assad.Noting that he had recently
discussed the war against ISIS with Russian President Putin, Obama
hinted that Putin was amenable to Washington’s plans to topple Assad.He
said that the US would step up its counterterrorism operations in
countries “from Afghanistan to Nigeria.” This was a signal that
Washington will continue its drone strikes, bombings, commando
operations and other illegal actions in Yemen, Somalia, Afghanistan,
Pakistan and other countries.Obama devoted nearly half of his
remarks to what he called the fight against terror threats within the
United States. He said, ominously, that his administration was
“partnering with Muslim communities” in the US and added that “we expect
those communities to step up.” This was a thinly veiled justification
for continuing government surveillance of the American people and other
repressive measures, carried out under the pretext of “protecting the
homeland.”His remarks followed days of media scaremongering
leading up to the Independence Day holiday on July 4. For several days,
the networks led their news broadcasts with alarming reports of
heightened terror threats, without producing a shred of evidence to
substantiate their warnings, while acknowledging that the government had
not detected any “credible, specific threats.”Obama’s emphasis
on the “war on terror” at home made clear that the relentless campaign
of the government to sow fear and anxiety among the public in order to
justify internal repression and external military aggression would
continue unabated.

In closing, let me note that this Fourth of July we celebrated 239
years of American independence. Across more than two centuries, we’ve
faced much bigger, much more formidable challenges than this -- Civil
War, a Great Depression, fascism, communism, terrible natural disasters,
9/11. And every time, every generation, our nation has risen to the
moment. We don’t simply endure; we emerge stronger than before. And
that will be the case here.
Our mission to destroy ISIL and to keep our country safe will be
difficult. It will take time. There will be setbacks as well as
progress. But as President and Commander-in-Chief, I want to say to all
our men and women in uniform who are serving in this operation -- our
pilots, the crews on the ground, our personnel not only on the ground
but at sea, our intelligence teams and our diplomatic teams -- I want to
thank you. We are proud of you, and you have my total confidence that
you’re going to succeed.
To the American people, I want to say we will continue to be vigilant.
We will persevere. And just as we have for more than two centuries, we
will ultimately prevail.

He wants to thank the military but not the American people at large?

He wouldn't have a job if it weren't for the American people at large.

He's just another War Hawk who never wore a uniform or carried a gun but wants to pretend like that's the only way to measure patriotism.

We could offer the fear examples but I really don't care to promote his scare tactics.

When Bully Boy Bush pulled this sort of thing, he would be mocked and called out.

We no longer live in such a world.

That became clear over the weekend when the dreadful Jill Stein announced she was seeking the Green Party's presidential nomination -- presumably so she could damage the party even more than she did in her 2012 run.

Stein used her announcement speech to take a strong stand against . . .

talking about Iraq.

In her silence on the topic, she linked arms with Hillary Clinton, the only other candidate who can't and won't talk about Iraq.

That's who should be the presidential nominee?

March 10, 2008, the Green Party issued a statement which included:

WASHINGTON, DC -- Green Party leaders today compared the Green demand
for an immediate end to the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan to the
pro-occupation positions of the Democratic and Republican presidential
candidates.

Greens said that party members supported protests planned by
International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) locals on the west
coast on May 1, 2008.

"Along with the election of Greens to Congress, actions like those
planned by ILWU members are what we need to force the immediate
withdrawal of US troops from Iraq and Afghanistan," said Rodger
Jennings, Green candidate for the US House in Illinois (District 12)
<http://www.rodgerjennings.org>.
"The longshore workers intend to press Democratic and Republican
presidential candidates to change their warhawk positions. Like the
Green Party, the ILWU has opposed both of President Bush's wars from the
beginning."

The Green Party of the United States has called for immediate troop
withdrawal and impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney
for numerous crimes and abuses of power, including deception and
manipulated intelligence to justify the invasion of Iraq. Greens also
favor a sharp reduction in the military budget, shifting funds over to
health care, conservation programs, efforts to curb global warming, and
other urgent needs.

"While Democrats have retreated, our own Green presidential candidates
-- Jesse Johnson, Cynthia McKinney, Kent Mesplay, and Kat Swift -- have
aggressively promoted the Green Party's position on the wars and on
impeachment," said Dr. Julia Willebrand, co-chair of the Green Party's
International Committee <http://www.gp.org/committees/intl>.

Democratic candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have promised to
pull 'combat' troops, but would leave thousands of US military personnel
and contractors, including mercenary security firms, in Iraq to prolong
the illegal occupation. Republican John McCain would maintain the Bush
policy that would extend the occupation for several generations,
bankrupting America both morally and fiscally.

Jill Stein's speech was racially tone deaf and insulting. A White woman, her former running mate in 2012, is going to speak for African-Americans?

Thanks to so many in this room who are leading the charge - to Cheri
Honkala for lifting the voices of black, brown and poor people in the
fight for economic justice [. . .]

And as Ava has repeatedly noted, Brown people?

Who is okaying this as a term to call Latinos and Hispanics because there was no vote taken on the matter?

And because what crayons do we next pull from the box to describe Asian-Americans and Native Americans and Arab-Americans?

"Black" has a long and proud history in the African-American community -- Black Is Beautiful, Black Power, Black Panthers, etc.

But "Brown" really does seem to be imposed on the Latino community by a number of Anlgo White activists.

At any rate, it's unclear how White Anglo Cheri is "lifting the voices" of African-Americans or Latinos?

Equally unclear is how that became her 'job'?

Cheri and Jill ran an uninspiring non-campaign in 2012 that did much to drive Greens away from the party.

Ava and I noted Jill's campaign failures immediately after the election in "Let The Fun Begin." Jill has done nothing to address those criticisms.

This go round, she does appear willing to take on Hillary.

As Stan noted of Jill in "The White Bitch Cometh," her entire reason for campaigning appears to be in order to engage in a sexist catfight with Hillary Clinton. (And, as he also noted, her attacks on Hillary only make the larger voting pool sympathetic to Hillary.)

In a speech consisting of over 1400 words, Jill Stein never found -- or made -- the time to note Iraq.

Again from that 2008 Green Party press release:

"While Democrats have retreated, our own Green presidential candidates -- Jesse Johnson, Cynthia McKinney, Kent Mesplay, and Kat Swift -- have aggressively promoted the Green Party's position on the wars and on impeachment," said Dr. Julia Willebrand, co-chair of the Green Party's International Committee <http://www.gp.org/committees/intl>.

So why is it that Jill Stein 'deserves' the party's nomination.

Kat Swift or Kent Mesplay or Jess Johnson would all be a strong choice.

(I would have no problem with 2008's nominee Cynthia McKinney running again but due to her experiences in 2008, I seriously doubt she would.)

And Kat, Kent and Jess have put in their time.

Jill really is the 'Green' Hillary Clinton.

She's coming in with a sense of entitlement, insisting she's the only choice.

In this exclusive investigation, Insurge Intelligence reveals that a leading anti-war monitoring group, Iraq Body Count (IBC), is deeply embedded in the Western foreign policy establishment. IBC’s key advisers and researchers have received direct and indirect funding from US government propaganda agencies and Pentagon contractors. It is no surprise, then, that IBC-affiliated scholars promote narratives of conflict that serve violent US client-regimes and promote NATO counter-insurgency doctrines.
IBC has not only systematically underrepresented the Iraqi death toll, it has done so on the basis of demonstrably fraudulent attacks on standard scientific procedures. IBC affiliated scholars are actively applying sophisticated techniques of statistical manipulation to whitewash US complicity in violence in Afghanistan and Colombia.
Through dubious ideological alliances with US and British defense agencies, they are making misleading pseudoscience academically acceptable. Even leading medical journals are now proudly publishing their dubious statistical analyses that lend legitimacy to US militarism abroad.
This subordination of academic conflict research to the interests of the Pentagon sets a dangerous precedent: it permits the US government to control who counts the dead across conflicts involving US interests — all in the name of science and peace.

I'm the biggest liar in the world! I'm the biggest bitch! I've said the count was at 3,000 and clearly I'm just a damn liar.

See, here's a screen snap of the count.

What a damn liar I am!

Oh, wait.

I'm not.

I pay good money for information. So today when Martha told me
an e-mail came in saying take a screensnap of IBC's count immediately
and explained why, I told her to reply that I would be hitting their pay
pal account with a generous thank you.

Here's the count minutes before IBC changed it.

No, I didn't lie.

But I'm told -- and paid for this information -- that IBC lowered the count under pressure from US officials.

I paid for it so I'll damn well repeat it.

And Iraq Body Count may not like that charge being exposed; however,
when you drop a count from 3211 to 1681, don't think no one will catch
you.

I'm sure they'll now try to come out with some alternate reason.

But I believe what I was told. That source has been consistently honest.

More to the point, why does IBC drop their count by nearly half with no note? Why do they try to hide what they did?

I am told Iraq Body Count was under pressure from US officials to drop
their count and agreed to. That's what I believe happened but I can't
wait to hear the fairy tale IBC intends to offer the world -- and, tip,
be sure your lie includes a reason for not explaining at your site that
you dropped the count.

IBC never offered a reason for their actions.

They probably thought it would just fade away.

But it didn't.

And it's part of many examples of how the 'independent' IBC actually answers to the US government and does their bidding.

Today, Alsumaria published the text for the bill on the National Guard. The proposed law does
note the Sons Of Iraq (Sahwa, "Awakenings" -- a largely Sunni body) as
well as tribal fighters, it notes the Shi'ite militias as well. As
written those groupings would be allowed to join the National Guard. In
terms of arms, the law declares the group would be more heavily armed
than the federal police but less than the Iraqi army. It goes into
commissions and, as I'm reading it, Sunnis might have difficulty of
meeting the criteria since they've been shut out of the process and
might not have the one year qualification to be made a Major General.
The Guard itself is put under the Prime Minister in his/her role as
Commander in Chief.

Article 13 outlines some general requirements which include:

* Both parents must be Iraqi

* volunteer must be at least 18

* permanent volunteers cannot be older than 35 and reserve volunteers cannot be older than 45

* must meet medical requirements (pass physical)

* no felony conviction (or misdemeanor on moral turpitude)

In yesterday's snapshot,
we again noted the failure of the Parliament to pass the National Guard
bill (while they did make time to vote on a new national anthem). National Iraqi News Agency notes
that, in addition to the National Guard bill, they also failed to pass a
law regarding the Federal Court as well as one regarding the justice
and accountability commission.

About Me

We do not open attachments. Stop e-mailing them. Threats and abusive e-mail are not covered by any privacy rule. This isn't to the reporters at a certain paper (keep 'em coming, they are funny). This is for the likes of failed comics who think they can threaten via e-mails and then whine, "E-mails are supposed to be private." E-mail threats will be turned over to the FBI and they will be noted here with the names and anything I feel like quoting.
This also applies to anyone writing to complain about a friend of mine. That's not why the public account exists.